Thank you very much for the excellent article. The dichotomy in which society has to weigh the use of potentially intrusive technology or other potentially far-reaching police measures to protect the citizens — notwithstanding the potential impingements of civil liberties — has gotten much more complicated since 9/11.

While I have not necessarily been in agreement with how the city has reacted to all post-9/11 issues, I do believe that the incredibly novel, aggressive and progressive approaches the city is now taking (as outlined in your article) are much welcomed. The city should be applauded for being at the forefront in developing cutting edge, state-of-the-art technology, in partnership with Microsoft, that can ultimately be used by other cities around the country and the world. The fact that the city will also commission future sales of this software and use the funds for further counterterrorism activities is icing on the cake and evidence of some great forward-thinking by our local leaders, in face of the most significant threat to our liberty and American way of life of our generation.

Many of us have come a long way toward the seemingly impossible task of healing our wounds from that horrific day and its aftermath. Knowing what the city is doing, I for one, will walk around the streets feeling a bit safer.William H. Groner

Censorship at Southbridge Towers

To the Editor:
Is it not known to the vast majority of Downtown Express readers that everyone has the right to express themselves as citizens of the United States of America? It’s right there in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Well, apparently there are those here at Southbridge Towers who do not believe in that right.

Something is wrong with the cause of democracy here at S.B.T. We, the side that opposes going private, should have the right to give our viewpoints without having our messages ripped off of bulletin boards. There is no provocation for this disgraceful conduct; it has been done for no reason except to deny others the right to hear our points of contention. There is absolutely no profanity nor any incitement to violence in our messages — merely what we believe to be the terrible truth about privatization.

Both sides of the issue should be openly pursued, especially if there is going to be a vote on an issue of importance to co-op dwellers. But judging by the boards right now, it appears just about all of the material up there is overwhelmingly pro-privatization.Geraldine LipschutzLipschutz is a resident of S.B.T. (77 Fulton St.)

I have lived in the Financial District since the early 1970s and have since enjoyed — along with parents and their children, the elderly and just the ordinary harried worker — the peace and quiet of the little park at 75 Wall St. Now, that is gone and yet another public space has been given over to private interests — in this case to a beer garden, which is ironic when just the other day a man was given a summons for drinking beer on the front steps of his Brooklyn home. To the casual passerby who was quoted in your article, the beer garden may seem like a good idea, but if the passerby were to consider the serious implications for the well-being of all people that results from turning over a public space to private interests, they may reconsider their opinions. What is the function of a park if not to provide a place to rest from the weary hubbub of the city? There are too few such public places, especially in the Financial District. Also, from what I see, the Andaz does not even abide by the new variance in the law given to the spaces along Water Street. O tempora! O mores!Richard Fabrizio

E-mail letters, not longer than 300 words in length, to aline@downtownexpress.com or fax to 212-229-2790 or mail to Downtown Express, Letters to the Editor, 515 Canal St., Suite 1C, NY, NY 10013. Please include phone number for confirmation purposes. Downtown Express reserves the right to edit letters for space, grammar, clarity and libel. Downtown Express does not publish anonymous letters.